Final-decree courts may re-determine shares to account for subsequent events and statutory coparcenary rights.

The petitioner, a party to final decree proceedings (FDP No. 85/2009) arising from a partition suit, sought modification of the preliminary decree.

He relied on a registered Will dated 5 December 2015, said to have been executed by his mother, Gowramma, and sought determination of the share that would fall to her.

He also sought correction of property measurements.

The FDP Court rejected both applications, principally holding that the preliminary decree could not be modified once drawn.

The petitioner challenged that order by writ petition.

The partition suit had declared one-fourth shares in favour of Lakshminarasappa, Devaraj, Keshavachandra and Yogitha; after Lakshminarasappa’s death, Gowramma and daughters Chandraleela and Kamala were brought on record in the FDP.

1. Whether the FDP Court could re-determine shares in light of subsequent events, including the death of a party, the impleadment of his heirs, the daughters’ asserted coparcenary rights and the Will relied on by the petitioner.

2. Whether the FDP Court was required to consider the petitioner’s challenge to the measurements and identification of the suit properties while working out the final decree.

Order XX Rule 18 CPC governs proceedings to work out a partition decree and requires the court to effect division by metes and bounds; the FDP Court may consider subsequent events that directly affect determination and allotment of shares.

Section 151 CPC was invoked in the applications, while Section 152 CPC was cited in the application concerning rectification of measurements.

Under Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma, (2020) 9 SCC 1, a daughter is a coparcener by birth, and her coparcenary right does not depend on her father being alive on 9 September 2005.

A Will must be proved in accordance with law before the property or share claimed under it can be given effect.

The FDP Court erred by treating the preliminary decree as incapable of reconsideration and failing to assess how subsequent events affected the shares to be allotted.

The Court held that the shares of Chandraleela and Kamala had to be considered under Vineeta Sharma; Lakshminarasappa’s share and its devolution on his death had to be determined; and Gowramma’s resulting share had to be quantified before the petitioner was required to prove the Will.

The Will’s validity was left for adjudication by the FDP Court, not presumed from its registration.

The measurement objection also required consideration, with a commissioner’s report available if the existing record could not resolve it.

The FDP Court was directed to re-determine the parties’ shares in accordance with law, determine and address the devolution of Lakshminarasappa’s share, quantify Gowramma’s share and adjudicate the Will after giving the parties an opportunity to be heard.

It was also directed to consider the measurement and identification dispute and, if necessary, appoint a Court Commissioner to report on the properties and their feasible division.

The High Court expressed no opinion on the Will’s validity.